"This cross is now a part of the official WTC memorial. No other religions or philosophies will be honored. It will just be a Christian icon, in the middle of OUR memorial,” Dave Silverman, president of American Atheists, said in a release.

Silverman added that the memorial must allow atheists and other belief groups to include their own displays of equal size. For the past several years the cross has been housed at St. Peter's church. On Saturday it was permanently moved to the 9/11 Memorial Museum after a ceremonial blessing at Zuccotti Park. The 9/11 Memorial Museum, which will officially open next year, said its mission is to tell the history of the attacks through artifacts like the cross.

"This steel remnant became a symbol of spiritual comfort for the thousands of recovery workers who toiled at ground zero, as well as for people around the world," said 9/11 Memorial President Joe Daniels. "In the historical exhibition, the cross is part of our commitment to bring back the authentic physical reminders that tell the story of 9/11 in a way nothing else can.”

I think the historic significance of the cross justifies its inclusion in the museum. Human beings cannot construct equivalent monuments for other religions, even if it were, in fact, legally required. Silverman's argument assumes that a historical museum is a free-speech forum that must be open to the speech of all groups, but that's not what a museum is.

Sometimes organizations file lawsuits not because they think they will win but to gain publicity for their cause. This is a case, however, of an organization drawing bad publicity, though, isn't it? I suppose this group seeks favor among a fairly small percentage of the population. If that is the goal, outraging the majority could feel like a good thing.

See, this is why people tend to think that atheists are dicks. (No offense to Pasta and numerous reasonable atheists who comment here regularly, I'm just saying that your more noisy representatives suck.)

When I saw them moving the WTC cross the other day I guessed wrong and assumed it would be Annie Laurie Gaylor who would appear in the press challenging this. Instead it was some other atheist. But I knew it was coming. I think they (the organized atheists, those who attend conferences and conventions) need to choose their battles more carefully. The emotion behind this is quite clear, it's very unwise of them to object to the cross artifact.

"As an atheist, let me just go on record here and say that these people (American Atheists) are world-class ass-clowns and useful idiots."

Sort of an atheist version of the Westboro morons, in my opinion. Not mainstream but vocal as hell and in it more for the attention than any real danger to their non-belief. (There is no danger to non-belief actually. At least not from Christians. Muslims on the other hand . . . )

When they start suing Islam I'll start taking them seriously. Otherwise they are just cowards and bullies.

BTW, question to anyone who's seen the Ricky Gervais "atheist cross" photo . . . how many think it was more about showing off his weight-loss than any real statement?

Silverman added that the memorial must allow atheists and other belief groups to include their own displays of equal size.

I think if there were wreckage that survived in the shape of the Star of David, a Crescent Moon, etc, due to 9/11, the world would be a completely different place. Despite that, here we have an accident of physics (maybe, anyway). In other words, to protest this is a good way of knowing that a) you're a atheist and b) you've got entirely too much time on your hands.

It's that they think that shows how smart they are and they want everyone else to know how smart they are.

Problem is, they're so afraid of religious symbols corrupting them (kinda like the Moslems and women) and their brilliance, they have to have them all removed from the sight by having the Lefty judges misapply the First Amendment.

"Silverman added that the memorial must allow atheists and other belief groups to include their own displays of equal size."

Only if such displays were present at Ground Zero in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11th event. Otherwise, it's a distortion of history.

I actually have no general objection to opening up any museum's display to include different belief systems. But I think that's only appropriate if such a display accurately reflects the actual historical event. To read the cross raising as a statement excluding non Christians is to read too much into the mindset of those who raised it back then. I don't see anyone at the time thinking "Let's make a Christians-only statement". Rather, I see it as the most honest expression of both mourning and hope that the erectors could think of at the time, and the fact that it was Christian stems from it being personal expression, and not exclusionary intent.

Again, I have no objection to alternate memorials inclusions if they were present during the same time period. But to demand (not even ask) for one ex post facto is inappropriate.

The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a state religion; it doesn't require government to pretend their people aren't religious. In a majority-religious, majority-Christian society, any monument that sets out to document how the people responded to a serious tragedy will end up documenting religious expression, and Christian religious expression in particular. There's only a problem if the government itself presents an image of officially endorsing religion.

Whoops. Yeah, that's right. It wasn't purposefully erected, it was identified after the fact. D'oh!

Still, though, I think my earlier post applies, albeit with that correction. I simply don't see anyone during the weeks of cleanup thinking "Boy, this looks like a great Christian statement!". I simply see the attitude as being more generic, and not even thinking about inclusion/exclusion, but rather just seeing symbolism in the wreckage. Attempting to put a different stamp on it after the fact speaks of agenda-driven maneuvering, and I still feel off-put by it.

"See, this is why people tend to think that atheists are dicks. (No offense to Pasta and numerous reasonable atheists who comment here regularly, I'm just saying that your more noisy representatives suck.) Also, why do (these sorts of) atheists seem some much like puritans?"

I think most atheists find something else to do with their life. There's no God? Okay, walk away from the whole religion enterprise.

Those who undertake public, activist atheism are a subgroup of atheists, and most of what these folks do is anti-religion. They are actively hostile to religion.

And I say that as someone who cares a lot about the separation of religion and government (and who teaches a law school course on Religion and the Constitution).

See, this is why people tend to think that atheists are dicks. (No offense to Pasta and numerous reasonable atheists who comment here regularly, I'm just saying that your more noisy representatives suck.)

I’ve often thought that American Atheists and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State are to atheists what the NAACP and Rainbow Coalition are to black folks – self-aggrandizing professional grievance mongers who were never elected by the groups they profess to represent and only get attention because they make noise and they’re in the rolodex of some journalist whose too intellectually lazy to be bothered to seek out the opinions of other members of that group.

I think most atheists find something else to do with their life. There's no God? Okay, walk away from the whole religion enterprise.

This. The great majority of atheists aren't out to destroy religion; we don't care about religion. But you have to remember, we're talking about a group of people united only by what they're not. It's hard to get much solidarity or unified voice out of a group like that. Almost by definition, the public face is going to be a very vocal minority of atypically devoted folks.

Me, I don't care about your religion or your religious expression. As long as you respect my right not to believe--and the overwhelming majority of religious Americans do--you won't hear word one from me about your belief. Unfortunately, that means the only unsolicited comments you're going to get will be from the vocal minority.

I'm an atheist who isn't particularly bothered by the lawsuit from the atheist's perspective. I think the idea is that religious belief itself was the tipping point for the Sept 11th attacks. Bad PR for atheists? Maybe. But the fact remains - less faith-based statements need to be made at that site. The hijackers saw themselves as devoutly carrying out a duty based on their faith. There are Christians make the same mistake (e.g. George Tiller murder). I suggest a little more secularism.

And, by the way, we seem to have people here who are confusing atheism w/ nihilism.

"Just curious what the atheist installation would look like. An empty stage?"

As an atheist I embrace humanism. And the names of people murdered that day is profound enough. They were human beings and the memorial should be about them as people.

I was thinking yesterday that gays and "new" atheists are two of the stupidest groups existing today:

Gays have a semantics problem. If "marriage" is between a man and woman, and "polygamy," for instance, is with a number of people - which we don't approve of - then what gays need is a new name for their partnering. I betcha we would approve of it - just don't be stupid enough to call it marriage because (Duh) we know what a marriage is.

"New" atheists, being just as blind and short-sighted, are denying this country's history - which is just as well-known as what a marriage is. By attempting to strike out all references to God, they are also trying to wipe out our Puritan heritage, which is dumb. We are what we are - and what we have been - which includes devout believers, slave owners, etc.. I'll speak for myself and say I may have somehow outdistanced the belief in God but not what that belief has bestowed on us, just as we may have outdistanced the belief in slavery but not what that belief has bestowed on us. Trying to wipe that out - like trying to stop everybody from saying "nigger" - is pointless, and more an expression of self-loathing, than anything useful for us as individuals, a people, or a country. We are not France, schizophrenically toying with our history to make it more palatable. We are Americans - quit trying to deny that. Atheism doesn't need a defense - it is the state of being - these idiots are no better than those they're fighting.

Speaking of the WTC beams, I had an amazing experience a few months ago with the Smithsonian's "America at War" exhibit. You are traveling through it as history, viewing pamphlets from the Revolutionary War, newspapers from the Civil, video propoganda from WWII, news footage from Vietnam and Gulf I- it's all history to me (well, I remember Gulf I, but it didn't affect me). So, I'm interested, fascinated even, but not emotionally impacted.

Turned a corner, and walked almost straight into two ten foot tall pieces of the WTC beams, warped and broken. Boom! It was almost like experiencing that Tuesday morning again. Stunning, in your face refresher of what it felt like to watch those towers fall. It was truly amazing.

I go with agnostic myself. I feel no need to try to convert (anti-convert?)anyone to my point of view, or to ridicule theirs. I feel no need to gather with like minded people to proclaim my superiority over people of faith. So perhaps I am doing it wrong. When the government establishes a state church and compels me to attend, I will become more vocal. However, considering all the different religions and sects that would also oppose such a thing, I don't see that happening any time soon.

So, you're all right with atheists equating you with say Pat Robertson?

If you judge by the noisiest, shouldn't everyone else?

No, nor am I OK with Christians judging Pasta, Gabrial Hanna, et al as the same as these dicks. I didn't say that I think that atheists suck, I said that this is why people do.

But, even so, you'd have to be incredibly dense to think that Pat Robertson is a good representative of Christianity. How may hundreds of people do you encounter on a daily basis who proclaim Christianity in a more Christian way than him? Whereas with atheists, unless you happen to hang around on threads like this one, most people only encounter the obnoxious ones.

For those of you wondering seriously and snidely what an atheist's representative symbol might be, I suggest a digital tour of Arlington Cemetery. You'll find them on the headstones of fallen atheist military personnel.

The Amazing Cracki with his usual...vapid generalizations and pseudo-insights.

The question isn't ...whether christians, other religious people or atheists and secularists approve, but whether the Constitution permits displaying of ANY religious symbol on public property--that was typically answered in the negative. Madison & Co would say no (they were not atheists of the Dawkins type, either). That held at least until Don Scaliaberg & Co took office.

So take it down. Or maybe modify for the peoples...turn it upside down. Ai ai ai

There are many countries that I don't live in. Therefor I only concern myself with the one I do live in. What those other folks do is their business. If they choose to allow government to have that kind of control, then so be it.

"he question isn't ...whether christians, other religious people or atheists and secularists approve, but whether the Constitution permits displaying of ANY religious symbol on public property--that was typically answered in the negative. "

Typically in the fairly recent past. File a suit 100 years ago that you dont think wreckage shaped like a cross should be in a memorial museum and see how far you get.

TWM: "... but exactly what is a 'less faith-based statement?' Sort of a 'Man, we miss theses guys' kind of thing?"

Well first let me say that I do not know exactly where this cross-beam crucifix is placed in the memorial... but I think saying that this event was a crime against humanity v. something like "And many of those people who died [on 9/11] are in heaven right now and they wouldn't want to come back. It's so glorious and so wonderful. And that's the hope for all of us who put our faith in God."

For me, the cross at ground-zero is purely coincidental. In fact, I'd be pretty surprised if there wasn't a cross beam left after the destruction given necessary architectural practices. It's no different than seeing the face of jesus in a water stain on a wooden fence.

But people of faith seem to want to take these silly things and make them one of the focal points of the memorial. Why not put a crucifix next to the names of those who died and were Christian if it's that important? With all due respect, the memorial is just as sacred to me as it is to others but why should I feel like this is a Christian burial ground?

True, the protestant-lodgemen have always wielded a great deal of power in the USA--indeed, that's what the old crackers Madison, Jefferson, Paine, et al were concerned with--controlling it, ie preventing the Hagees/Phelps/Joseph Smiths of their era from coming into power. See Locke's essay on "Enthusiasm" for starters. Halle-looo-jah brthhhrrr.

While a memorial to remember the fallen is important, I am also concerned about the empty hole in the ground which remains tens years later (longer than the time required to construct both original towers).

Ten years later and Ground Zero remains undeveloped. The people of "developing" nations are laughing at America's exceptionalism. I think the aftermath would qualify that there was a successful terrorist campaign.

As for the atheists (especially those who are part of a cooperative), they have a competing faith, and will do whatever is necessary to marginalize their competing interests. In the end, they will be judged by their principles and the outcomes they render.

Only incidentally related, but does anyone know why slavery was rejected? It was an economically viable institution and there is no natural or objective basis for rejecting it. In fact, the natural order demands that we dominate our competing interests in order to increase our own fitness.

Even granting the small probability that.....a G*d exists that doesn't mean He's on the side of a bag of corrupt, pro-capitalist scheisse such as Tony Scalia (or the usual WASP-preacherly blowhards). Whoop. He probably objects to the yokel cross as well.

36fsfiend...The native Americans had undergone a 75% depopulation from plagues brought over with the first explorers, and that is what destroyed them.

Otherwise they would have made better use of their unalienable rights to bear arms and won the territorial wars they fought so savagely against the settlers, being armed allies first of the French and then of the British.

So they disappeared first while the Christians used science and education in their churches and church founded universities to grow stronger.

" Oclarki said... What's the deal with the prominence of Jews in athiest ciricles? It's one of the red flags that show the movement is more anti-Christian than anti-religion."

1. Jewish faith doesn't include an afterlife. All decisions are cost-benefit, and in the Jewish faith there's less cost.

2. Because there is no afterlife your loved ones who believe have no reason to care you don't, so there's less social pressure to outwardly conform.

I think the vocal atheists are disproportionately anti-religion. They're mostly leftists using it as a hate platform against their political opponents. I don't think atheists being disproportionately jewish is an inherent sign of anti-christianity.

What do you mean by "the whole religious enterprise?" What about atheists who reject belief in the supernatural but follow the teaching of Jesus as a philosophy?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

- Matthew 22:37-40

Hard to follow a philosophy when you reject its primary axiom. But if you meant "what about atheists who agree we should be nice to people and not stone each other to death and so forth" then sure, I'm all for that. And I'm thankful to the Greek philosophers who thought of it first. :)

The solution to the problem is to have the athiest's beliefs also demonstrated at the museum.We need to send workers through the wreckage and discover the emblematic "Athiesm" symbol and the put that up in the museum as well.My belief is that the emblem of athiesm is a complete emptiness and so any of the middle of any of the rooms would suffice.

I think its good that we fight and argue about this. I think in this narrow case it might be OK. The museum should still make some effort to show that they aren't picking sides on religion. I think it would be sad if nobody worried that this Cross might be a little bit of a problem. Christians need to know that not everybody sees it the way they do. So I commend American Atheists for picking the fights that others shy away from.